Preventive order under Section 126 BNSS invalid without stating substance of information in writing per Section 130.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS TUESDAY, THE 7^TH DAY OF APRIL 2026 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1948 CRL.MC NO. 3137 OF 2026 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06.12.2025 IN MC NO.229 OF 2025 OF SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, KANHANGAD PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER:

SHARIK M PAGED 32 YEARSS/O M P MUHAMMAD SHAFI, AYISHA MANZIL,WEAVERS STREET, NILESHWARAM VILLAGE,KASARGOD DISTRICT., PIN - 671314BY ADV SRI.P.K.SUBHASHRESPONDENTS/STATE: 1 THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE,KANHANGAD,OFFICE OF THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE KANHANGAD,KASARAGOD DISTRICT., PIN - 671315

2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE NILESHWARAM POLICE STATION, KASARGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671314

3 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 OTHER PRESENT:

PP.SRI.M.P.PRASANTH THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

07.04.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Dated this the 7^th day of April, 2026

ORDER

The petitioner is the counter-petitioner in M.C. No. 229/2025 pending before the Court of the Sub-

Divisional Magistrate, Kanhangad.

2. The petitioner has stated in the Criminal Miscellaneous Case that he has been served with Annexure A1 preliminary order directing him to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum for the purpose of keeping the peace for a period of one year as envisaged under Section 126 read with Section 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘ BNSS ’, in short).

3. The petitioner contends that, Annexure-A1 order is unsustainable in law because the Sub Divisional Magistrate has not set forth the substance of the information in the said order, which is mandatory under Section 126 read with Section 130 of the BNSS , and the law laid down by this Court inMoidu vs. State of Kerala ( 1982 KHC 139 ). Therefore, Annexure-A1 order may be quashed.

4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. In the above context it is necessary to refer to Sections 126 and 130 of the BNSS , which corresponds to the erstwhile Sections 107 and 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,which reads as follows:

126. (1) When an Executive Magistrate receives information that any person is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquility or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquility and is of opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, he may, in the manner hereinafter provided, require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond or bail bond for keeping the peace for such period, not exceeding one year, as the Magistrate thinks fit.

(2) Proceedings under this section may be taken before any Executive Magistrate when either the place where the breach of the peace or disturbance is apprehended is within his local jurisdiction or there is within such jurisdiction a person who is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act as aforesaid beyond such jurisdiction.

130. When a Magistrate acting under section 126, section 127, section 128 or section 129, deems it necessary to require any person to show cause under such section, he shall make an order in writing, setting forth the substance of the information received, the amount of the bond to be executed, the term for which it is to be in force and the number of sureties, after considering the sufficiency and fitness of sureties”.

6. The above provisions explicitly postulates that the Executive Magistrate, on receiving information that any person is likely to commit a breac